In The International Human Rights Movement, Aryeh Neier offers a comprehensive and authoritative account of this global force, from its beginnings in the 17th and 18th centuries to its essential place in world affairs today. Neier combines analysis with personal experience, and gives a unique insider's perspective on the movement's goals, the disputes about its mission, and its rise to international importance.Discussing the movement's origins, Neier looks at the dissenters who fought for religious freedoms in 17th-century England and the abolitionists who opposed slavery before the Civil War era. He pays special attention to the period from the 1970s onward, and describes the growth of the human rights movement after the Helsinki Accords, the roles played by American presidential administrations, and the astonishing Arab revolutions of 2011."

Ian Buruma

Ian Buruma is an Anglo-Dutch writer and academic. Much of his work focuses on Asian culture, particularly that of 20th-century Japan.
He was born in the Netherlands, to a Dutch father and English Jewish mother. He studied Chinese literature and then Japanese film at Nihon University in Tokyo. He has held a number of editorial and academic positions and has contributed numerous articles to the New York Review of Books.
He has held fellowships at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, D.C and St. Antony's College, Oxford. In 2003, he became Luce Professor of Democracy, Human Rights & Journalism at Bard College, New York.

Aryeh Neier

Aryeh Neier is the President of the Open Society Institute. Prior to joining the Institute in 1993, he served for 12 years as Executive Director of Human Rights Watch.

Before that, he spent 15 years at the American Civil Liberties Union, including eight years as national Executive Director. Neier has served as an Adjunct Professor of Law at New York University for more than a dozen years.

Neier has contributed more than 150 op-ed articles in newspapers including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the International Herald Tribune, and articles that have appeared in newspapers in many countries.

Author of six books, he has also contributed chapters to more than 20 others. Neier, a naturalized American, was born in Nazi Germany and became a refugee at an early age. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences and the recipient of six honorary doctorates, the American Bar Association's Gavel Award and the International Bar Association's Rule of Law Award.

Aryeh Neier, President of the Open Society Foundation, discusses the state of human rights in Communist China. Citing the work of intrepid journalists, Neier declares that there are some avenues to human rights in China.

Moderator:It's obviously a great honor to be able to introduce both Aryeh Neier and IanBuruma for a celebration of Aryeh's new book that came out just last month on PrincetonUniversity Press on the history of International human rights movement. Ian, many ofwhom in this audience is a well known person. Ian is the Luce professor of democracy,human rights in journalism at Bard college finishing a fellowship as well at the Cullmancenter of the New York Public Library where he is writing a book called Life In Ruinsabout the immediate aftermath of World War II in Asia and Europe. And of course, he'sthe author of numerous books. I will not take the time to go through all of them butit's a great pleasure to have him as [IB] with Aryeh tonight. Aryeh himself, what canwords say, has been president of the Open Society Foundations since 1993, served for 12years before that as the executive director of Human Rights Watch of which he was afounder now some 35 or so years ago in 1978. He had worked for 15 years before that atthe American Civil Liberties Union and it's a great pleasure to be able to be here andcelebrate his new book. One very small personal note I should say, I had the honor andthe responsibility, I guess, of reading Aryeh's book in draft form over my Christmasholiday in 2010. And as many of you would probably understand, the responsibility ofhaving to provide some interpretive exegetical critique of a book on the history of humanrights by Aryeh is a task not for the faint hearted. And it reminded me constantly, ofcourse, of that scene in Annie Hall where Marshall McLuhan pops out of the wings to tellthat Columbia professor how he knows nothing, absolutely nothing about his work. Aryehwas far more gracious in my limited commentary and critique and Ian will speak now forroughly 45 to 50 minutes. We will then open it up to questions subsequently.Aryeh Neier:Okay. And I suggested that I should start by giving you a precis of thebook. So I will try to boil down I think about 125,000 words into about 15 minutes. Itis intended as a history of the international human rights movement and I think there issome controversy as to when the human rights movement developed and how it developed.And I stake out a particular position on that subject. And I suggest that what we knowtoday as the international human rights movement is of a fairly recent origin thatessentially, it developed in the 1970s, that it certainly had precursors. There wereimportant precursors in terms of efforts to protect rights. For example, the religiousdissenters in 17th century England were very preoccupied with rights that they were notconcerned with rights across national boundaries and they were primarily concerned withtheir own rights. I think that something more analogous to the contemporary human rightsmovement emerged in the second half of the 18th century in England with the effort to endslavery. And because slavery was international, inherently, that movement was concernedwith matters that went across borders, that is slaves were transported from one place toanother. And also, a number of the people who are concerned with the effort to endslavery were not focused on their own rights. They were focused on the rights of others.And the altruistic character of the anti-slavery movements seems to me, to make up themost important precursor of the contemporary international human rights movement.There were various efforts in subsequent periods to protect rights internationally. Anumber of efforts during the 19th century concerned with particular abuses, for examplein the 1870s, what were referred to as the Bulgarian Horrors in which Gladstone inEngland led a protest against the Ottoman Turks for their oppression of the Bulgarians.But I suggest that that was in part because it was Muslims persecuting Christians. Andtherefore, it had a particular resonance in England. In fact, I think that manyhistorians agree that it propelled Gladstone into the position of Prime Ministerreplacing his long-time rival Disraeli who had not spoken out forcefully against what wecall the Bulgarian Horrors.Anyway, bringing it up to the 1970s, I think the critical factor that helped to establishan international human rights movement was the Cold War context in which it emergedbecause I think the Cold War had the effect of magnifying the importance of certaindevelopments during that period. Starting in the 1960s, there had been a number ofpersons in the Soviet Union who organized protests dealing with rights. There were ahandful but the international press and the public at large paid a great deal ofattention to them because they were challenging the power of the Soviet State at asomewhat earlier period. I think the conflict between east and west had sometimes beenportrayed in economic terms rather than in terms of concern about political repression.If you look at today's New York Times, on the second page of the arts section, there isthat famous photograph of Richard Nixon debating Khrushchev in front of the kitchen andthe triumph of the west was meant to be exemplified by Nixon's ability to point to thelabor saving devices in the kitchen. So, that was considered to be the nature of theCold War contest.But that shifted and I think it shifted principally under the influence of some of thephilosophers of the period and some of the novelist of the period ranging, you know, fromthe early post World War II period, George Orwell but to much later AlexanderSolzhenitsyn.But anyway, there was this attention to the Soviet decent disproportionate attentiongiven the relative handful of people but it achieved importance because of the immenseattention that was paid to it.But the United States in particular, which had tried to exemplify liberty and standing upto the Soviets was itself vulnerable. And its vulnerability was its support ofrepressive regimes in different parts of the world in Latin America, in Asia, in Africa.The United States supported a variety of anti-communist regimes. And another part of thehuman rights movement particularly crystallized around the Pinochet coup on September 11,1973 and the support of the Pinochet by the Nixon administration during that period.Another development during that period was the effort on college campuses in the UnitedStates to impose sanctions on South Africa. That was probably the first effort in whichsubstantial numbers and presence in this country were involved in an international humanrights issue and always in the United States, what prompted involvement in human rightswas the involvement of the United states. That is Americans didn't protest againstabuses in other countries. They protested against the role of Americans in facilitatingabuses in other countries.So, after the Soweto riots of 1976 and the murder of Steve Biko shortly after the Sowetoriots. The movement for disinvestment in South Africa took off in the United States.Somewhat later on, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were the principal opponents ofdisinvestment and sanctions on South Africa but the movement in this country was strongenough so that congressional legislation imposing sanctions on South Africa was adoptedover Ronald Reagan's veto.Anyway, so, the human rights movement on the one hand was denouncing Soviet abusesbecause of the attention to Soviet dissenters and thereafter, dissenters inCzeckoslovakia and Poland. And then, it was announcing the United States in particularfor its support of repressive regimes in different parts of the world. And I think thatmainstream of the human rights movement was quite clear in opposing both kinds of abusesof human rights,both the Soviet block abuses and the abuses by anti-communistdictatorships in various countries that were supported by the United States.And I think the human rights movement ended up playing a very significant part in theefforts that it made in that period in the 1980s, between 1983 and 1990. Virtually,every dictatorship in Latin America was overturned and replaced by a democratic or a moreor less democratic government. The only exception in fact was Cuba, but Argentina,Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Central American countries all had dictatorshipsreplaced by something more democratic and something significantly less abusive of rightsthan the regimes that had existed previously.Something of the same sort happened in east Asia, that is the Philippine dictatorship ofMarcos came to an end in 1986. The Korean military dictatorship in 1987, Taiwanunderwent democratic change during that period. And then, of course, somewhat later on,South Africa had the transition from the apartheid state to a state in which all membersof the population participated in self-government. And of course, in 1989, the communistdictatorships of eastern Europe collapsed.Of course, the human rights movement was not the sole factor in those transitions.Probably, in a lot of cases, it wasn't the dominant factor. But it was a factor in thetransitions that took place in different parts of the world during that period and itsability to challenge those on both sides of the Cold War divide who engaged in repressiveactivities provided the human rights movement with a standing, a status. Itwasn't...there were, of course, those who only denounced leftist regimes and those whoonly denounced rightist regimes. But the mainstream of the human rights movement wasopposed both to right-wing repression and to left-wing repression.Subsequently, in the period since the fall of the dictatorships in Latin America and EastAsia and after the revolutions of 1989 in Eastern Europe, I don't think the human rightsmovement has been able to play quite so significant a role geopolitically as it playedduring that earlier period, really at its infancy. But it has maintained a verysignificant role and I think there are 3 issues that it has focused on which have allowedto play a very significant role.One is that it extended the concept of human rights from the ordinary civilian practicesof government to armed conflict. So, it took on the role of trying to secure compliancewith an older branch of law, international humanitarian law which regulates conduct inarmed conflict. And since probably the most severe human rights abuses are committedduring armed conflict, the role of the human rights movement in documenting abuses inconflict and trying to mitigate those abuses has been immensely important.I think a second issue which has then of central significance to the human rightsmovement during this period has been securing accountability for past abuses of humanrights. And so, you have had truth commissions in about 40 countries. We've seen morethan 60 heads of state and head of government prosecuted for either human rights abusesor corruption or combination of the two. In the last 20 years or so, we have seen thedevelopment of a number of international criminal tribunals such as the one, the specialcourt for Sierra Leone which convicted Charles Taylor the other day and the developmentof the International Criminal Court.And then, I think the third issue which has been of immense importance in terms of thesignificance of the human rights movement is the post 9/11 effort to restrict rights andthe resistance of the human rights movement to the kinds of restrictions on rights thathad been proposed after 9/11. certainly, many restrictions of rights have taken place.My own tendency in looking at that situation is to see the glass as half full rather thanhalf empty, that is one could have anticipated so much worse than has actually takenplace. And I think extensive resistance whether in courts, whether in the legislativebranches, whether in the constant denunciations of various kinds of abuses has actuallysignificantly mitigated the impact of various repressive tendencies that emerged in thewake of 9/11.So, obviously, those are not the sum total of the role of the activities of the humanrights movement. But I think that it has sustained itself sustained its significance andis an ongoing force and a force to be reckoned with for a long time to come. So, that'smy precis.[applause]Ian Buruma:It's difficult to add very much. Reading your book, a few questions didarise. And first of all, I'd like to take you back into history and look at some of thehistorical roots of the human rights movements. You wrote very interestingly about therole of natural law.Aryeh Neier:Yes.Ian Buruma:And I was wondering would it also...would it be accurate to say as well asnatural law, Christianity played a large role and specifically the missionary task ofChristianity as seen as by missionaries which in some ways went together also withcolonialism and I'm thinking of Christians in India, British India wishing to abolishsati and other such things. How important do you think that factor is, the missionaryelement of Christianity?Aryeh Neier:It's not a factor that I tried to deal with in the book.Ian Buruma:I understand.Aryeh Neier:And in part, I suppose I felt I was somewhat out of my depth in trying todeal with it. I would say that yes, there is that missionary aspect which played animportant role, but, you know, Christianity is not the only religion that has had amissionary aspect. Islam certainly had a significant missionary aspect. So, I wouldn'tput the missionary aspect itself as necessarily the most important factor of Christianityin providing a sort of intellectual and philosophical basis for the emergence of thehuman rights movement. I think probably, ideas about love thy neighbor are moresignificant as a contribution of Christianity that is, since I attached a great deal ofsignificance to the altruistic character of the human rights movement, there is inChristianity, a significant altruistic factor and I think that probably was the mostimportant contribution.Ian Buruma:Well, there's another aspect of it which may overlap with natural law a littlebit more which is the belief that the norms and values that you wish to bring to theworld are universal ones.Aryeh Neier:Yes.Ian Buruma:And that is fundamental to Christianity.Aryeh Neier:Yes, a lot. You can spend a long time debating the difference with let'ssay, between higher law and natural law and Christianity has this concept of higher law.But I don't think it was Christianity itself. Let me retreat for a moment because when Ithink of the people who were involved in the anti-slavery efforts of the 18th century,there's no question but that Quakers but not only Quakers, but, you know, somebody likeWilliam Wilberforce acting out of an evangelical Christianity played a very significantrole with respect to the antislavery movement.Ian Buruma:Yes. The reason I asked the question is that as you know that one of thecriticisms of international law as a normative exercise is that it does suggest ordoes...the recent supposition is that it is there to apply universal norms.Aryeh Neier:Yes.Ian Buruma:The criticism from a lot of the weaker countries and in the world, in thenonwestern countries is well, that's all very well to talk about these universal norms.What's [IB] who makes these norms? It's the powerful west and it's the same countriesthat used to colonize them.Aryeh Neier:Yeah, but it's also the powerful rulers of those countries who make theargument against universal norms, it's not coming from those who are the victims of thepowerful rulers. So, you know, if Mahathir in Malaysia or, you know, the Suharto regimein Indonesia made the argument on behalf of Asian values and against universal norms orLee Kuan Yew made that kind of argument, I'm not sure that would have come from let's saypolitical prisoners in Indonesia.Ian Buruma:Yes. I hope you understand. I was speaking for the devil here.Aryeh Neier:No, absolutely.Ian Buruma:But at to what extent is that fact that the international criminal court forpractical political reasons can really only go after figures from relatively minorcountries? Make that argument harder in the sense that it's easier for the people whotake that view to say, Oh, well, it's, you know, you'll never see an American in front ofthat court. And it's always people from--Aryeh Neier:I would put it a little bit differently. You won't see an American in frontof that court for quite a while. I do think that some of these institutions have to gaincredibility over a period of time. In the case of the United States, you know, Americanexceptionalism has kept the United States out of many international human rightsagreements and when the United States does become a party to them, it's very often verylate and with as many exceptions and reservations as can be imagined. So, you know, itwas 40 years after the genocide convention was adopted by the United Nations that theUnited States ratified it and then with all kinds of reservations which to a significantextent, nullify American ratification of the genocide convention. But eventually, theUnited States did feel they'd had to make the gesture of ratifying the genocideconvention. Eventually, the United States did feel it had to make the gesture ofratifying the international covenant on civil and political rights. And I won't live tosee it but I think that the international criminal court eventually will be ratified bythe United States.Ian Buruma:But if it's ratified and here, the devil is on very thin ice, and you'll neversee a Russian or...never. It's hard to imagine a Russian or a Chinese to appear in frontof that court either. And so, power politics will always to some extent dictated that.Aryeh Neier:Yes, but you know, we came not quite close to having a Russian in front ofit but there was a sort of possibility of it at the time of the Russia and Georgia war.And if I had been the prosecutor for the international criminal court, I thinkultimately, I probably would not have indicted the Russians because when we're going todo so, one would want a more clear cut case than that. The statute for the internationalcriminal court requires a certain level of gravity with respect to the abusers and onewouldn't want a debate over whether an indictment met the gravity test. But if there hadbeen a significantly larger number of crimes committed on Georgian territory by theRussians during that war, I think it would have been possible for an indictment to takeplace.Ian Buruma:And Chechenia?Aryeh Neier:There, the problem is all of the crimes take place on Russian territory andRussia is not a party to the treaty for the international criminal court. Georgia is aparty to the treaty and therefore, crimes committed by the Russian troops in Georgiawould have been subject to the jurisdiction of the international criminal court. Andpart of the problem is that the most powerful countries, the United States, China, andRussia, have not ratified the treaty for the international criminal court. And so, it'sonly when they commit crimes on the territory of a country that has ratified the treatythat they become subject to its jurisdiction.Ian Buruma:Yes. What about...we talked about the international criminal court and youmentioned genocide. I think I read your book that you are quite sympathetic towards theright to protect and the right to intervene in cases of and I think genocide is thecriteria you used. How...what should the criteria be? What are the sort of yardsticksthat one can use for intervention?Aryeh Neier:Yeah. That's a, I think a very difficult question. It wasn't called theright to protect the moment that it took place. But the intervention in Kosovo was anexercise, not right but the responsibility to protect. There was an exercise of that. Ithink it was legitimate at that moment for NATO. In a sense, it was NATO that intervenedto say that we have had the recent indication of what Slobodan Milosevic's forces will doin Croatia and Bosnia. Now, we have an apparent repetition of those kinds of crimestaking place in Kosovo. Therefore, the basis for intervening seems to me legitimate.That is, there were the actual crimes taking place at the moment of intervention. Andwhat had happened in Bosnia in particular had indicated the extent to which the killingcould take place, whether Bosnia qualified as genocide then it certainly qualified ascrimes against humanity and I don't think it only has to be genocide which implies anintent to exterminate all or part of the population on racial, religious, or ethnicgrounds, that crimes against humanity which don't involve that particular intent but arevery large scale crimes, are enough of the basis for intervention.Ian Buruma:Do you think it might be better to not to talk about genocide at all anymoresince it's so contested. You in your book I think--Aryeh Neier:Yeah, but a small number of times, something actually does meet the standardof genocide. I think Rwanda clearly met the standard of genocide and genocide is thelargest crime that we can identify and when something gets to that point, I think it'sappropriate to use that term.Ian Buruma:But does Rwanda qualify because of the intent or because of sheer numbers?Because you talk about the gravity in the numbers.Aryeh Neier:I think it requires both. I think it requires both the intent and a verylarge scale. I think that where you have, let's say, an intent to kill people because oftheir race or religion and you kill people. I don't think it's appropriate to use a termsuch as genocide. The concept of extermination is also part of the definition ofgenocide.Ian Buruma:I think in the genocide convention, they don't talk about numbers, do they?It can't be against 10 people.Aryeh Neier:There is no...there is no attempt to quantify but there is the reference toexterminate in whole or in part and the idea of extermination implies substantialnumbers.Ian Buruma:And on that...on a related topic, somebody told me the other day that you werepartly responsible for the...for a certain number of Jews become neocons in the Skokiecase. That is, 2 questions. First of all, is it true that the Skokie case, whicheverybody here probably would be aware of when you stood up for the right of Neo-Nazis tostage a demonstration in a largely Jewish suburb of Chicago that that was indeed, as wellas the school in Brooklyn, I believe, a catalyst for some people to turn to the neoconswho felt betrayed by this.Aryeh Neier:Look, I'm speaking out of interest so I can be discounted for what I say.But Skokie was quite peculiar, that is it aroused immense antagonism for a relativelybrief period that is there were people who were horrified at the position that theAmerican civil liberties union adopted that I adopted in defending freedom of speech forthe neo-Nazis. That turned around and I would say that there is widespread agreementtoday which would extend to neocons that the ACLU did the right thing in Skokie that itwas one of those events. It wasn't enormously important legally. It didn't set a greatprecedent. But wen Americans think about freedom of speech, often their attitude is,Well, if the Nazis could march in Skokie, I guess, so and so, can be accepted ortolerated. And neocons will take that position as well as anybody else. I think theissues that had a deeper impact in developing the neocon movement were often race issuesin the United States and to a somewhat more limited extent, foreign policy issues,military issues And I think, you know, policy towards Israel was also a significantfactor in developing the neocon movement in the United States. But there is a wideracceptance of freedom of speech for everyone in the United States that I think than atany time previously. And I think there are very few places in the world where theacceptance of freedom of speech is as great as in the United States. We haven't had inthe post 9/11 period, we haven't had significant backsliding on freedom of speech thathas been you know, one bad US supreme court decision [IB] humanitarian law project. Butother than that, that's really exceptional. The commitment to freedom of speech has beenvery substantially maintained in the United States. And let's say the Bushadministration did not attack freedom of speech.Ian Buruma:Times change though. Do you think would you still be so sanguine if let'ssay, a group naming itself a jihadi group were to announce that they were gonna stage ademonstration in the vicinity of downtown New York. So--Aryeh Neier:Well, that was the argument against the--Ian Buruma:--start shouting for death to the infidels.Aryeh Neier:That was the argument against the mosque a couple of--Ian Buruma:Yes, but that wasn't nearly as provocative as a group shouting death to theinfidels.Aryeh Neier:I think that Americans have, to a quite surprising extent, surprising to mebecause when I started working on freedom of speech issues, half a century ago, publicattitudes were very hostile to freedom of speech for left-wingers in particular. I dothink that there has been a very substantial evolution of public opinion in the UnitedStates on freedom of speech issues and I think the significance of Skokie is that itcontributed to that. When I used to speak on the Skokie case and at the time the casewas going on, I spoke on it. It seemed to me every evening and sometimes, you know, 2 or3 times a day. And one of the questions I would ask people was, How many of you havegotten into dinner table debates about Skokie? And almost every hand in the audiencewould go up. And I had the impression during that period that over time, the free speechargument got more and more support in the course of those dinner table arguments. Itproved to be from a freedom of speech standpoint, probably, the single most valuableeducational effort, certainly I was ever involved in.Ian Buruma:Shifting continent a little bit. In terms of human rights, why do you say inyour book that you think China is moving in the right direction?Aryeh Neier:No. I'm ambivalent on China. I'd say that, you know, for every 3 stepsforward, they are 2 steps backward in China.Ian Buruma:What's the one step forward?Aryeh Neier:I think...not something coming from the regime. What I would rather say isthat within the citizenry in China, there seems to be a greater willingness to espouserights then there has been in the past. I'm really very much an admirer of a lot ofChinese journalists. It seems to me that they are constantly engaged in struggles toexpand the range of issues they cover and to go into greater depth in the issues thatthey cover. I have attended meetings of Chinese editors in which they talk about havingto remain at their desks until 11 o'clock at night because they have to argue with thepropaganda ministry about what is going to appear in the next morning's newspaper. Butthey do argue and my impression of the Chinese journalists is they don't go like thatagainst the regime. They go...they look for byways. They don't want confrontations butthey are trying very hard to expand coverage, you know. So, whether it's something likethe poor construction in Szechuan which led to the collapse of the schools at the time ofthe earthquake or if you go back, you know, a number of years to the appearance of theSARS epidemic and the role of the press in China in [IB] the SARS epidemic and making itknown and forcing the Chinese government to acknowledge the SARS epidemic and that waypreventing it from becoming a worldwide plague. But there is that kind of effort byChinese journalists. So, whether rights are protected is not only a function of theregime. It also is, to a very large extent, the question of the assertion of rights andmy impression is that Chinese journalists in particular, are in the forefront of tryingto assert rights. Some Chinese lawyers also play that role. So, we've had, you know,the drama in the last several days of the blind lawyer, Chen Guancheng, and he's notalone. There are a lot of...China doesn't have, compared to the United States, a verylarge number of lawyers. It's a very small profession compared to a country like theUnited States. But a significant number of Chinese lawyers do seem to try to play a roledefending rights.Ian Buruma:Yes. That's true. I mean it's...the American conservatives have long arguedand it's a question, a very questionable assertion but that capitalism brings, expandsrights and brings more democracy. Could one, at least, if you narrow this argument down,say that more capitalism, more commercial competition in China has actually contributedto the positive effects of what you're just talking about. In other words, scandalsells.Aryeh Neier:I don't think so.Ian Buruma:Well, the scandal...the newspapers that often exposed scandals do so becausethey know it sells more copies.Aryeh Neier:My contacts with Chinese journalists and, you know, I had lunch the other daywith 3 Chinese journalists, including a woman who's a very well known editor in China.And my sense of them is that they are determined to be good professionals. And this is,with expanding coverage and deepening coverage is as aspect of that desire forprofessionalism. And I feel the same way about the lawyers. I've attended trainingprograms for legal aid lawyers in China and there's, you know, a very famous defenseattorney named Mo Shaoping and watching him speak to 100 legal aid lawyers, to say thatyou could hear a pin drop, the wrapped tension, the determination to try to learn fromhim seem to me overwhelming and the legal aid lawyers, you know, aren't doing anything ofcommercial significance. They are paid, you know, trivial amounts of money and yet, theydo seem, you know, they come to their position with no basis whatsoever. They'veattended...they've studied law as undergraduates. They're sort of, they go into a legalaid office with no idea how to represent a criminal defendant. But when they had achance to listen to somebody who knew how to represent a criminal defendant, there was adetermination to learn. And that aspect of desire for professionalism has been immenselyimpressive to me.Interviewer:Uh-huh. How much time do you have for questions more?Male:Ten more minutes then, it's over.Ian Buruma:Do you see similar developments in countries like Egypt, similar figurescoming up?Aryeh Neier:You know, I've traveled in Egypt a lot less than I have traveled in China andI've had much less exposure to the kinds of people I'm talking about in the Chinesecontext. So, the fact that I don't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It maysimply reflect the limits on what I have been able to observe in Egypt. I was, byaccident, a witness to the first demonstration going towards Tahrir Square. And that wasan enlightening experience because it was quite obvious to me watching thatdemonstration. I was staying at a hotel. We had a conference in a hotel with hugewindows directly overlooking the paths that the demonstrators were going on. And it wasvery clear to me watching that demonstration that somebody had organized thatdemonstration with great care in advance even to a point where as the demonstratorsapproached a line of police directly below the hotel, the demonstrators lifted theirhands like that to show that they weren't carrying any weapons. I mean that was an oldsort of, you know, tactic from the civil rights movement and it went back in the UnitedStates to a man named A.J. Muste who was the principal anti-war figure in the UnitedStates long ago. So, somebody had sort of learned all those methods and people have beenvery well prepared. But I've had glimpses of things in Egypt. I don't have depth ofknowledge.Ian Buruma:I must ask you one more question before we throw it open to other questions.Something that I already admire you greatly but made me admire you even more--Aryeh Neier:Okay.Ian Buruma:--when I was told the other day that you were preparing an article aboutpornography and in order to prepare this article, you read the complete works of Balzac.Is this true--Aryeh Neier:Not the complete work.Ian Buruma:--and why Balzac?Aryeh Neier:Not the complete work but by any means, I'm not prepared.Interviewer:Why Balzac?Aryeh Neier:There was a particular novel by Balzac which the french word that is used inthe title is Tenebreuse and it maybe translated, you know, a Murky Affair or somethinglike that. About half the book is given over to Balzac's analysis of the argot of thedemi-monde and it's great stuff. So, I enjoyed reading it. And I don't know how Idiscovered that particular novel by Balzac but I had a good time.Ian Buruma:I'll take any questions. Right at the back.Question 1:How would you assess the critique of the human rights movement particularly inthe former communist block as basically having failed to live up to its promise thathuman rights activists, as you noted, were somewhat artificially inflated in importanceby the west as a result of Cold War politics. And after the collapse of communism, theyfailed to translate human rights principles into politics that many of the countries inthe regions quickly spawned repressive regimes just as repressive as the ones thatexisted?Aryeh Neier:I don't just as repressive.Question 1:Well--Aryeh Neier:I don't think...yeah.Question 1:And then, just one more point--Aryeh Neier:Yeah.Question 1:--that the human rights activists today are fairly marginalized and arelargely reliant on the support of the open society foundations and other outsiders tosustain their work.Aryeh Neier:I think that the critique has merit. There should have been a much higherlevel of engagement. But I don't think that, you know, it's appropriate to consider theregimes, you know, comparable to what existed previously. Even if you take somethinglike the Putin regime in Russia where everything is organized to maintain his politicalpower. Nevertheless, you don't have people being, you know, sent off long prison termsfor speaking critically of the government. People can travel from one part of thecountry to the other. They can travel internationally. They can have associations withthe west. That's an awful long way to go in a country like Russian in protecting humanrights, and you know, clearly there have been murders of journalists, murders of humanrights activists that have taken place in Russia. There are terrible abuses committed onan ongoing basis in a region like Chechnya. And yet, even with all the abuses that doexist in Russia, I don't think it should be acquainted with the abusiveness of the oldSoviet regime. And to a certain extent, one has to say that the capacity to protecthuman rights, can't only emanate from outside. Outside, one can document the abuses.One can criticize the abuses. One can support those who try to defend human rights. Butthere has to be, from within the country, a significant movement to protect rights. Insome respects, I would contrast China and Russia. China, seems to me far more repressivethan Russia today. You couldn't have an episode like this Guancheng case in Russia. Butyou also sense in China, or I sense in China, a more widespread demand for rights than Isense in Russia today. And the fact that there is not a more powerful human rightsmovement within the country is a significant part of the reason that rights are notprotected in Russia.Ian Buruma:Which is the reverse of what it used to be because before the fall of thecommunist regime, there was far more an activism in Russia than there was in China.Interviewee:Yes. There was far more activism. Look, one of the things that happened inthe Soviet block countries and I think where we need to recognize this is that the westwon the cold war, you know. The Reaganite kind of explanation for that seems to mesomewhat silly. But I think a different explanation that I would offer or at least onefactor in the explanation is that the United States in particular was very effective ingetting across the view that political freedom and economic prosperity went hand in hand.And so, when you had various protests against the regime, I don't think you could haveseparated the concern for political freedom from the concern for economic prosperity.They will seem to some degree as one and the same thing. I think that was probably moretrue in eastern Europe than it was in Russia. And in eastern Europe, there was also, youknow, an anticolonial element. It was not just denial of political freedom but it wasdenial of political freedom due to the power of the colonizer of eastern Europe, theSoviet Union. So, all these factors about economic prosperity, political freedom, andanti-colonial element that all were sort of tied together and help to bring about theprotest against communism.Question 2:Human rights, there periodically been discussions about the idea of economichuman rights and whether or not there should be something set up to advocate for thatparallel to political human rights and I understand why, you know, human rights--Aryeh Neier:And I'm considered an odd reaction on that front.Question 2:Alright. Well, I don't know the ins and outs but do you feel that...Iunderstand why human rights want to keep its mission, and what I had to mention but doyou think that it would be valuable and useful and productive to have a parallel economicrights movement that would set up in a similar way and be advocating in countries thatpeople should have a basic level?Aryeh Neier:Yeah. You know, there are various groups that have organized around the ideaof economic rights and I would say that today, most human rights organizations at leastrhetorically embrace the idea of economic rights. They don't devote a great deal oftheir activity to it but they proclaim a commitment to have economic rights. Look, myown view of this is I espouse economic justice. I don't espouse economic rights. Thedifference between the two is that if I favor economic justice, I favor more equitabledistribution of the benefits and resources of society. But I think that has to takeplace through a variety of tradeoffs and through the political process. My attitudetowards rights is rights have to be very strong. They have to trump all other concernsso that I don't want tradeoffs on freedom of speech or the right not be tortured, youknow, or something of that sort. That is, no matter how offensive what I have to say is,I think I should be able to say it. If the state has an overwhelming desire to getinformation from me, I don't think it ought to be able to torture me in order to get thatinformation. So, taking that very strong stand on rights, I can't take that approachwith respect to what I call economic rights because necessarily, there are questions ofresources. There have to be debates as to how much one gets in terms of income oranything else and I don't think one can solve those problems through assertions aboutrights. So, I can advocate for let's say, a changed tax system so as to promote moreeconomic justice. But I don't feel like I can deal with a subject like that by claimingthat there are rights that are involved. I don't think it lends itself to the concept ofrights.Question 2:Okay. I don't think it would be necessarily like on a tax system issue butmore like, you know, basic access to not to go....to not starve, not have children thatare hungry. They have access to clean water and so on and so forth.Aryeh Neier:No but--Question 2:It could be parallel.Aryeh Neier:Let's take that example of access to clean water. Many people worldwide donot access to clean water. In order to give them clean water, vast resources would haveto be deployed. If you take China, for example, you've had this, you know, immenseimprovement in some respects in terms of the standard of living that is a huge economicheadway in China. But in China, that has been accompanied by a great deterioration inaccess to clean water. You know, the northern part of the country is to a significantextent, running out of water. The Yellow River is a dead river in China. In Beijing,they have to go deeper and deeper in terms of wells to try to get water for the residentsof Beijing. And so, the consequence of the immense economic headway in China is adisastrous impact on access to clean water. And, you know, probably there are verysignificant health consequences in China as a result of the denial of access to cleanwater now, one has to somewhere strike a balance, it seems to me, between gettingpeople clean water and allowing the significant economic headway that has been made inChina to take place because as a result of the economic headway, people have less cleanwater but they have more food. They have better housing. They have better clothing inChina. That's what I mean by tradeoffs. How you resolve a question like that doesn'tseem to me susceptible of...you can't resolve that question through assertions aboutrights. One economic benefit ends up being disastrous so far as another economic benefitis concerned.Question 2:Okay, I'll take this up with you later.Aryeh Neier:Yes?Question 3:Aryeh, you cited as one of the three main developments for the human rightsmovement a focus on enforcement and understanding of humanitarian law or the loss of war.Aryeh Neier:Yes.Question 3:And I wonder if you could reflect on the challenge for the human rightsmovement now during a period where we seem to have slipped into somewhat of a perpetualstate of war. I mean as important as the laws of war are in protecting civilians and allthat, the fact is that they permit an awful lot of brutality frankly, and things we wouldnever tolerate during what we used to call peace time. But now, we seem to have driftedinto somewhat of a perpetual state of war. And well, it's never been the province of thehuman rights movement to, you know, say when war starts and finishes. We seem to have anew challenge now in terms of which standards apply.Aryeh Neier:Yeah. I have...I'm not sure that I would agree historically that thisquestion of, you know, perpetual war is a larger problem than in the past, you know. Wedid have in the post World War II era very substantial wars. We had the Korean War, wehad the Vietnam War, we had the Iran-Iraq war and the, you know, the many millions ofpeople who were killed in that war. We had a tremendous number of wars that took placein Africa, in South Asia, Southeast Asia. You think of the war for the independence ofBangladesh and the, you know, the vast number of killings and horrendous abuses that tookplace in that war. I think what you're actually pointing to is that we have a higherlevel of consciousness today of the victimization of civilians in a number of theconflicts that are underway. And that, to a significant extent today as was not the casepreviously. Our thinking about the wars that continued to take place such as the war inAfghanistan is very much shaped by our awareness of the civilian victims. The civilianvictims weren't a big focus of public thinking let's say at the time of the Korean war.That concern with civilian victims is a much more recent phenomenon. And to some extent,I think it is a consequence of the focus of the human rights movement on what takes placein armed conflict. You know, one of the things I feel very good about in terms of humanrights watch during my period is that it played a significant role in initiating concernwith violations of the other laws of armed conflict and it has continued that focus.But, you know, I think a valuable innovation is the work that is being done by a tinyorganization that I'm very fond of called Civic, the Campaign for Innocent Victims inConflict which has been engaged in this effort to get armed forces to pay damages to thefamilies of civilians who are killed in armed conflict. And I think there is somethinglike that continues to raise consciousness within the militaries themselves about theneed to protect civilians against armed conflict. So, there's a lot more to be done inthis field than has been done until now. But I actually don't think that the situationis worse than it was previously. You know, I don't have figures to reel off. I think ifone, you know, were to examine that the way, let's say Steven Pinker does in his bookabout the, you know, this long-term reduction in violence. You might come to somewhatsurprising results.Question 3:One quick followup. I actually am more concerned not...I agree with you onall of that actually. My concern is more that what does it mean for us that, you know,if as, you know, now seems to be case, the US will be withdrawing from Afghanistan in2014. We're in a situation where it's still quite a serious possibility that even afterthat, the United States will think of itself and project itself as a nation at warbecause of the so called war on terrorism. And that's the concern I have about what doesthat mean for those of us in the human rights movement when we're looking at thequestions of which laws apply?Aryeh Neier:At least, your job will not be done. You have to keep at it. So, you got along way to go. One doesn't, you know, achieve permanent victories in efforts on behalfof human rights. There are always more and more challenges to be faced. But in general,I don't share the view that things have gotten worse.Interviewer:I think we have time for 2 more questions. So--Question 4:I'm from Kyrgyzstan. What's your opinion about human rights issue in ourcountry after 2 revolutions?Interviewer:Which country?Question 4:Kyrgyzstan, Central Asia.Ian Buruma:Kurdistan.Person:Kyrgyzstan.Ian Buruma:Oh, Kyrgyzstan.Question 4:Kyrgyzstan Central Asia.Aryeh Neier:Kyrgyzstan.Question 4:Yes. What do you think about the human rights issue now in our countrybecause, you know that [IB] after our revolution.Aryeh Neier:Yeah.Question 4:Thank you.Aryeh Neier:Although I don't think there's a cause and effect relationship between thetwo. Look, I had thought of Kyrgyzstan as the country in Central Asia that was mostpromising and, you know, then was somewhat shocked or more than shocked by the violencein the south involving the Uzbek minority in the south of the country. So, clearly,there are significant human rights issues that have to be addressed in Kyrgyzstan as theyhave to be addressed elsewhere. But at the same time, it's a country that in itsneighborhood looks relatively good from a human rights' standpoint.Ian Buruma:David. Here. We'll have one more.Question 5:I've done my devil's advocate role too many times with you repeated thisevening but unlike Ian, I'm actually sincere about it. The...what I'd like you to do istake up the response [IB] which is to say there are no permanent victories.Aryeh Neier:[IB]Question 5:To take up the response, excuse me, that you just made that there are nopermanent victories--Aryeh Neier:Yeah.Question 5:--in human rights. And do talk, if you would, for a couple of minutes aboutwhere you think things are going rather than how they go up there.Aryeh Neier:I'm disappointed by a number of developments and I'm encouraged by a fewother developments. And I'm very disappointed by developments in Europe. I think therise of xenophobia and racism in Europe is a very serious setback for human rights. Ithink that the advent of the current government in Hungary is a particularly repugnantdevelopment. I don't know how things will be in the new, with the new leadership inFrance. I hope that some of the easy espousal of racism associated with Sarkozy willdiminish in France. But the fact that, you know, Marin Le Pen was able to get about 18%of the vote in France is not encouraging. I think the end of the Berlusconi era in Italywas another...was a more favorable development and I hope that the tide of racism andxenophobia in Italy will diminish. The fact that these sort of racist movements haveeven emerged in, you know the Scandinavian countries in the Netherlands, the countrieswhich we thought were the sort of paradise for human rights is quite despiriting. Ithink in the United States, I'm disappointed that the Obama administration has been soresolute about not looking backward to the abuses of the previous government and, youknow, it has sort of held the line on human rights since coming into office. I don'tknow what will happen after the fall elections. On the other hand, if you look at someother parts of the world, I'm you know, encouraged by developments in West Africa thatyou now have several countries in West Africa that have rights respecting democraticgovernments in a territory where horrendous abuses of human rights took place not thatlong ago. I don't know what the outcome will be of the Arab revolutions. So, I'm veryoptimistic about developments in Tunisia. I'm not optimistic about developments in a lotof the other in the Arab region. So, I think one gets a sort of mixed picture as onesort of looks around the world at various developments. There are things that are goingin the right direction and there are things that are going in the wrong direction. Theproblems in Europe I think are very serious because, you know, if the United States doesnot play a leadership role with respect to rights and I don't think it is likely that theUnited States will play a leadership role with respect to rights in the period ahead.One would have hoped that would emanate from Europe and that kind of hope doesn't seemrealistic in the current context. So, if I look to where leadership has to come from, Iactually think it has to come from the nongovernmental human rights movements that it hasmore of a role than individual governments or associations of states in protectingrights.Ian Buruma:Maybe they will come from the Germans and the Japanese.Aryeh Neier:One more question.Question 6:I know that you and OSI have been very involved in Romani--Aryeh Neier:In?Question 6:Romani Rights.Aryeh Neier:Okay.Question 6:For a long time.Aryeh Neier:Roma. I see.Question 6:Roma Rights and Romani rights. I wonder if you could talk a little bit abouthow you see the status of Roma rights today and how you see one being able to help theeveryday Roma...I mean in eastern Europe most obviously but also here and in other placesmove forward in the status.Aryeh Neier:Again, there are contradictory developments so far as Roma Rights areconcerned. That does seem to be, you know, a higher level of sort of an outspokenprejudice against the Roma today both in the eastern Europe and some countries of westernEurope than in the past. And when I, you know, spoke of Berlusconi, I had in mind someof the attacks on Roma in Italy and Sarkozy was also unfortunate with respect to Roma.On the other hand, one does see the emergence of greater capacity within the Romapopulation itself and that probably translates into a greater ability to become advocatesfor their own rights. And I think in terms of, you know, the role of the Open SocietyFoundations, our role has on the one hand been to defend Roma Rights but I think it hasbeen to a larger extent, a much larger extent, an effort to enhance capacity within theRoma communities themselves. And I think that is a successful effort and over the longterm, will pay off in significant ways in enhancing the protection of Roma Rights.Ian Buruma:Thank you very much.Moderator:So, thank you, Ian, and thank you Aryeh for the very reflective and thoughtfuland so much surprising point on Balzac. But I'd like to ask my close colleagues, AmyYenkin and Ricardo Castro if they would come up for a second for their own sort ofsurprising and unpredictable presentation.Ricardo Castro:Hi. Good evening. My name is Ricardo Castro and this my colleague, AmyYenkin. And we want to just take this opportunity to, on behalf of the staff of OSI toexpress our affection and appreciation for Aryeh's leadership of OSI. As you may know,Aryeh steps down from that position at the end of June. And so, we were looking for asort of modest way that wouldn't embarrass Aryeh too terribly to express that affectionand appreciation. And as you may know, we have a documentary photography program at OSIwhich Amy heads up. And we have an exhibition that's up currently and one of thefeatured series of photographs deals with Burma. And it is a series of portraits thatwere taken of different activists and civil society actors many of whom we have supportedover the years. And on the hand of each person in the portrait appears the name ofsomeone who when the photo was taken was in prison in Burma as a political prisoner.Happily, many of the people whose names were written on those hands today are now free,thanks to the reforms. Aryeh made a probably very casual comment to Amy about one of theimages and that gave us an idea that perhaps we could give him that image.Amy Yenkin:Before I take out the image, I just want to say that in presenting the image,I feel that it symbolizes the values and principles that the foundation has embodied.So, therefore, it feels very fitting to be able to present it to Aryeh on behalf of theentire staff really in celebration of his life-long commitment to human rights.Ricardo Castro:And we have measured the print so it will fit his new office in our newoffice space.Aryeh Neier:Thank you.[applause]Aryeh Neier:That particular photo sort of gets me every time I pass it on the stairs.So, thank you very much. I am deeply appreciative.Ricardo Castro:We hope it will haunt you for years.Aryeh Neier:Okay, thank you.